On 9/25/15 8:45 AM, Ole Ersoy wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On 09/25/2015 08:54 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >> Hi Ole, >> >> for a start, I think you are asking the wrong question. >> First of all we need to agree that we want to add some kind of >> logging >> facility to CM. > Well it has to be SLF4J because that's the one I'm most familiar > with :). We did discuss having observers that can listen in on > increment events that algorithms publish. This would provide a > dependency free method for doing so with one drawback. Now > everyone that wants the algorithm to log has to implement logging.
This is the right approach, IMO, for reasons that have been stated in the archives. Has more as much to do with separation of concerns and clean API contracts as dependencies and conflicts. Phil > >> If the outcome is positive, there are a handful of alternatives, >> some of >> them more viable than slf4j in the context of CM (e.g. JUL or >> commons-logging). > Would you be upset if it was SLF4J? This is minor, but I like the > @SLF4J annotation that Lombok provides. > >> >> btw. the same discussion has been done for other commons >> components as >> well, and the result usually was: do not add logging > I think for the reason that commons should not introduce > transitive dependencies? This has been solved fairly well (Below). > > Cheers, > - Ole > >> >> Thomas >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Ole Ersoy <ole.er...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> We have been discussing various ways to view what's happening >>> internally >>> with algorithms, and the topic of including SLF4J has come up. >>> I know that >>> this was discussed earlier and it was decided that CM is a low >>> level >>> dependency, therefore it should minimize the transitive >>> dependencies that >>> it introduces. The Java community has adopted many means of >>> dealing with >>> potential logging conflicts, so I'm requesting that we use SLF4J >>> for >>> logging. >>> >>> I know that JBoss introduced its own logging system, and this >>> made me a >>> bit nervous about this suggestion, so I looked up strategies for >>> switching >>> their logger out with SLF4J: >>> >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14733369/force-jboss-logging-to-use-of-slf4j >>> >>> >>> The general process I go through when working with many >>> dependencies that >>> might use commons-logging instead of SLF4J looks something like >>> this: >>> >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8921382/maven-slf4j-version-conflict-when-using-two-different-dependencies-that-requi >>> >>> >>> With JDK9 individual modules can define their own isolated set of >>> dependencies. At this point the fix should be a permanent. If >>> someone has >>> has a very intricate scenario that we have not yet seen, they >>> could use >>> (And probably should use) OSGi to isolate dependencies. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - Ole >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
